Monday, May 14, 2012

.......the sexual abuse crisis has to be seen in the context of clerical
culture in the church. I agree with those who say that celibacy did not
cause the sexual abuse crisis, but when a group of men sit around a
table discussing what to do with one of their colleagues who abused a
child, it makes a big difference whether the men at the table have
children. The first question in a parent’s mind is “How would I feel if
my child was abused?”

The inability of celibate men to ask that
question blinded them to the consequences of their decisions. They
focused on the priest, not the victim. A culture of fear and
dependency also contributed to the crisis. I don’t know whether Monsignor Lynn broke the laws of Pennsylvania, but he was certainly no
hero. Too few priests stood up to those in authority and said, “No, you
can’t do that.” Speaking truth to power is not welcomed in the Catholic
Church.

Diocesan priests are totally dependent on the good will of
their bishop for assignments and promotions. If a 60 year old bishop is
appointed to your diocese, he is going to be your boss for the next 15
years. In practice, there is no appealing his decisions toward you nor
can you escape by moving to another diocese. You are stuck. In
this corporate culture, few are going to tell the bishop “no.” The one
pastor in Philadelphia, who refused to accept an abusive priest, got
reprimanded and punished for challenging the archbishop. This is what
happens when you speak truth to power in the Catholic Church. The
problem in the Catholic Church today is that the hierarchy has so
focused on obedience and control that it has lost its ability to be a
self-correcting institution. Creative theologians are attacked, sisters
are investigated, Catholic publications are censored and loyalty is the
most important virtue. These actions are defended by the hierarchy
because of fears of “scandalizing the faithful,” when in fact it is the
hierarchy who have scandalized the faithful.

4 comments:

"In this full presentation of Christianity, it is proper to emphasize those essential aspects which the "theologies of liberation" especially tend to misunderstand or to eliminate, namely: God and true man; the sovereignty of grace; and the true nature of the means of salvation, especially of the Church and the sacraments. One should also keep in mind the true meaning of ethics in which the distinction between good and evil is not relativized, the real meaning of sin, the necessity for conversion, and the universality of the law of fraternal love. One needs to be on guard against the politicization of existence which, misunderstanding the entire meaning of the Kingdom of God and the transcendence of the person, begins to SACRRALIZE POLITICS AND BETRAY THE RELIGION OF THE PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECTS OF REVOLUTION.

The defenders of orthodoxy are sometimes accused of passivity, indulgence, or culpable complicity regarding the intolerable situations of injustice and the political regimes which prolong them. SPIRITUAL CONVERSION, THE INTENSITY OF THE LOVE OF GOD AND NEIGHBOR, ZEAL FOR JUSTICE AND AN PEACE, THE GOSPEL MEANING OF THE POOR AND OF POVERTY, ARE REQUIRED OF EVERYONE, AND ESPECIALLY, OF PASTORS AND THOSE IN POSITIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY."

As a survivor of Jesuit sexual abuse, let me ask Fr. Reese exactly how much work he has done to hold the Society of Jesus accountable for its wrongdoings?

Last month, Former Chicago Provincial and U.S. Jesuit Conference President Bradley Schaeffer was finally forced to resign as trustee of multiple boards of directors for failing to take action against notorious abuser Don McGuire. That happened because the Boston Globe wrote several articles about Fr. Schaeffer's leadership failures. http://articles.boston.com/2012-04-26/metro/31399560_1_chicago-province-jesuit-conference-schaeffer

Fr. Reese could also comment about the case of Fr. Daniel C. O’Connell, former president of St. Louis University, who sexually assaulting a 20-year-old college student in 1983. In 2003, the Jesuits' Missouri province pledged that Fr. O'Connell would be “restricted from participating in public priestly ministry,” but he has lectured at several Jesuit universities. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/nyregion/30jesuit.html

How many articles did Fr. Reese write about Fr. Schaeffer, Fr. O'Connell or any other Jesuit abuser? How much time has he dedicated to bringing Jesuit crimes & misdoings to light? It is easy to cast stones at "the bishops", but far harder to turn attention toward one's self.

Abuse survivors like me have been ignored, stonewalled and ostracized by the Jesuits. If Fr. Reese truly cared, he would investigate the Society of Jesus' own crimes and hold his superiors accountable.

The Jesuits have worn their tattered and rotting intellectualism as a suit of armor for far too long. And we should be grateful that they can still argue both sides of a position, otherwise there would be nothing positive to say at all about them. One can almost hear the self-congratulatory clapping echoing in the halls of Ignatius as Fr. Reese enters.

The Jesuits have indeed learned well over this last decade. Now the Society of Jesus can teach the Catholic Church how to blend the despising sympathy of Dr. Phil watching victims cry with the revisionist history and diseased reasoning of Glenn Beck. The Jesuits can safely reclaim their title as true educators for the 21st century with such superficial appeasement and panem et circenses.

About Me

I am not a Jesuit, nor am I a cleric. I spent about 5 years under the spiritual direction of a Jesuit, 3 of those years in a weekly directed retreat in everyday life. The profound impact that the Society and the Excercises had upon my life, resulted in me, trying to deal with that impact in some way by sharing my view of Jesus Christ with others. My intention is to pull together Jesuitical and Catholic subjects that interest me. I was born on the feast day of St. Paul Miki, S.J.. I am the father of three small children and an infant, I am married to a great wife.